Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

Dodd's Opportunity

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd. Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

President Barack Obama's plan to overhaul financial institutions, which he will announce later today, will put Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd (D) at the center of legislative action over the coming months -- affording him the opportunity to rehab a battered image in advance of his 2010 re-election race.

Major pieces of Obama's proposal will require legislative action -- including the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency -- and Dodd, as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, will be the chief point of contact for the Administration.

Such a prominent perch means that Dodd will regularly be in the news -- both nationally and in the state -- and have the opportunity to remind Connecticut voters that despite his problems over the past several years he remains well positioned to help the state.

"After a difficult year last year, his series of recent victories this spring is reconnecting voters with Dodd at his best and the Chris Dodd that they know," argued one former senior staffer of the Connecticut Senator.

Polling shows that Dodd has much work to do. A Quinnipiac poll conducted in late May showed Dodd trailing former Rep. Rob Simmons (R) 45 percent to 39 percent although other data contained in the survey was more problematic for the incumbent. Just 37 percent of voters had a favorable opinion of Dodd while 51 percent saw him in an unfavorable light; 38 percent approved of the way Dodd was handling his job as compared to 53 percent who disapproved.

The question is whether Dodd can use his leadership role on financial reform (and health care) to re-convince voters that he is the effective legislator that saw him as in the nearly three decades in the Senate prior to his failed run for president in 2008 and the string of scandals that have dogged him in the year since then.

Dodd's re-election argument will be entirely transactional -- "we've been through a rough patch but I am still the best chance Connecticut has to get the federal government working for them."

Could it work? Yes.

But, the financial reform plan being laid out by the President later today is likely to meet real hurdles on Capitol Hill, hurdles Dodd must find a way around in order to claim victory and re-establish himself as a power player in the Senate. If negotiations over the reforms go south, Dodd could be left looking ineffective -- a disaster in terms of the logic of his re-election race.

"There is an enormous push for reform and with a President far more popular than Dodd in his own state, the onus is on Dodd to push this legislation through without watering it down so he can claim some credit for cracking down on the financial industry," said one Democratic strategist well connected in the Nutmeg State.

Inaugural Hall of Fame Troll class:
37thandO
Dianne72
AsperGirl
King of Kook
JakeD
Von Brunn (honorary)
_______________
For each of the winners, five smashed aluminum cans that he/she can redeem at the local Piggly Wiggly.

yes hateful creature. We all know how little "tolerance" you kooks have for any dissension.

Only problem is that market forces keep bankrupting everything Liberal. remember Air america? how about the NYTimes? NBC news? MSNBC? all flops due to extreme liberalism.

Next up Obamacare, surrender overseas, empty speeches, massive spending - all destined to be complete failures. Reminds me of the Carter years, the last extreme Lib to be shown the door based on his liberal performance.

Interesting considering that the "Tear down this wall" speech is credited with mobilizing the east and demonstrating that americans were of like mind with freedom for all. reagan is known for a few great speeches full of "hope and promise" that were actualy fulfilled.

Obimbo is known for a multitude of great speeches full of empty rhetoric and lies. See the difference?

Now it seems we are of like spinelessness according to Obambi. not very invigorating for our allies, although our enemies seem to have noticed. they have a new sense of motivation and purpose.

Yeah, the point I was trying to make is that Obama is probably doing what is best for US interests. Despite what people think, braying on a soapbox isn't always the best way to get things done. Sometimes its best just to assess the situation and see how things unfold.

And if the US is going to intervene, they had better be DAMN sure that there was massive corruption of the election process. Perhaps its just my style, but I don't need a lot of kinetic motion to think that the right decisions are being made. Sure, Bush would go up and say lots of cool John Wayne things like "bring em on" or "with us or against us," but any moron could tell that these were counterproductive statements.

ddawd-
What often goes uncovered by the drive-by media is that Ahmadinejad's challenger isn't necessarily all that preferable to Ahmadinejad. He's less loony, and doesn't seem to share the holocaust-denying views, but DOES support the nuke program 'for energy purposes'. So, supporting the protestors, if it merely gets us 'Ahmadinejad-lite,' doesn't really advance our cause all that much in the region. It would be a high-risk, low-reward maneuver.

==

But wait, there's more. Support for honest elections is in our interest, if only because the Iranian populace is surprisingly moderate after decades since the Islamic Revolution. I would go further and say that we should support free and fair elections even when, as in Gaza, the elect someone we don't care for.

And further still: better someone less loony than hold out for another Shah Pahlevi willing to sell out Iran to American interests.

To forbid Iran nuclear reactors is just dumb, but -- going further yet again -- even forbidding them nuclear weapons is unjustifiable, however undesirable it may be. Given that Bush named three nations in the Axis of Evil speech, and the most helpless of them was invaded, occupied, and its leader handed over to a lynch mob, Iran justifiably feels a need for a deterrent.

Not to mention Israel's possession of several hundred nukes, in the hands of a government at least as crazy as Iran's.

Chris Dodd, like much of Team Obama, has countenanced by inaction the ongoing domestic extrajudicial targeting and punishment "matrix" spawned or expanded under Bush-Cheney.

Dodd's father was a Nuremberg trials prosecutor. Senator, read this, and take a stand, now -- before more unjustly "targeted" Americans suffer. And bring along Team Obama. You will do your father proud:

ddawd-
What often goes uncovered by the drive-by media is that Ahmadinejad's challenger isn't necessarily all that preferable to Ahmadinejad. He's less loony, and doesn't seem to share the holocaust-denying views, but DOES support the nuke program 'for energy purposes'. So, supporting the protestors, if it merely gets us 'Ahmadinejad-lite,' doesn't really advance our cause all that much in the region. It would be a high-risk, low-reward maneuver.

"Wow. With the health care debate gearing up, some new numbers from Gallup suggest that the public doesn’t exactly have a tremendous amount of confidence in Republican leaders on the issue.

Only 34% are confident that GOP leaders Congress will make the right decisions about health care reform — less than the insurance companies (35%) or the pharmaceutical companies (40%). By contrast, more have confidence in Dem leaders (42%), and even more trust Obama (58%).

"BSIMON: US interests lie in a Free and Democratic Iran. There is a short opening that could bring about the downfall of this theocractic Totalitanian Iranian government. Great Presidents sieze the momemt not remain silent. Obama has the capacity to inspire people with a speech like he did after the Iowa caucases. An inspirantional speech to the Iranian people could be tipping point to bring about freedom in Iran, but we will not ever know because this President believes freedom is not worth speaking out about. It is SHAMEFULL."

You know, if US interests were counter or neutral to supporting the protesters, then I can imagine Obama sitting on the sidelines. But if it advances US interests to intervene, then why the hell would Obama not do anything? It would be politically popular AND good for the country.

I realize that a lot of people look at everything through Reagan colored sunglasses, but this just is not the same thing. I'm for letting Obama take a measured response to this. Most likely nothing is going to happen. Has anyone ever seen the US intervene in unfair elections? Bush sure didn't do it in Russia. (I'm not saying this to compare Bush and Obama. I'm just saying that the US doesn't have a good history of intervening in unfair elections)

"House GOPers Tweet On Similarities Between Iranian Unrest And Oppression Of House Republicans

Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) is posting on Twitter to praise the use of social networking media to organize against the tyrants in Iran -- and the tyrannical Democrats running the House of Representatives.

"Good to see Iranian people move mountains w social media, shining sunlight on their repressive govt - Texans support their bid for freedom," Culberson posted earlier today. He then followed it up with this: "Oppressed minorities includeHouseRepubs: We are using social media to expose repression such as last night's D clampdown shutting off amends"

Over the next few hours -- and following some ridicule in the blogosphere -- Culberson has dug in further. "Pelosi etal shut down House amendments & debate on Approps Bill to prevent conservatives from slowing down their uncontrolled spending spree," he just posted.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) has also Tweeted on the similarities between the oppressed House Republicans and the Iranians taking to the streets: "Iranian twitter activity similar to what we did in House last year when Republicans were shut down in the House."

No, this is not from The Onion. It's more like Mad Magazne. Or fourth grade.

Miss Loonypants wants to break the law, becuase of another of her crackpot conspiracy theories:

"Next year, the 2010 Census will be sent to every American household, as required by the U.S. Constitution. The far right has issued dire warnings of the Census; on a May 29th episode of Bill Bennett’s radio show, RNC Chairman Michael Steele intoned, “Certainly the collection of this information is going to be part of an ongoing political campaign by this administration.”

In an interview with the Washington Time’s right-wing radio show this morning, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) declared that she would break the law and refuse to answer the Census questions, beyond noting the number of people in her household"

All other things being equal, of course. But as we've learned in Iraq, getting from here to there is not always as easy as some imagine. Elections in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon likewise serve as reminders that elections do not always produce the outcomes we prefer.

But, lets imagine that the President does as you wish, and calls for the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow the current regime. What next? Send in the troops and create a 3rd war in the region? I suppose it could be considered consolidation - meeting in the middle with the Afghan & Iraq wars. Or does he pull a Bush 41, who pledged support for an Iraqi uprising, then left them hanging, to face Saddam alone. And how will the Iranian regime react? Do they mimic the Chinese response in Tiannamen Square? Do they shut down the Straits of Hormuz, causing an oil shock that worsens the current global economic crisis?

If you can't tell, I think this idea that all Obama has to do is make a speech and democracy will break out in Iran is beyond wishful thinking to the point of dangerous delusion.

This chart, contrasting the Obama administration's January projections of what the unemployment rate would be with and without the stimulus package against the actual numbers of recent months, is popping up everywhere, from Newsweek to FactCheck.org to Ace of Spades. It deserves widespread attention. To get the stimulus passed, the Obama administration promised the moon, and had no idea whether it would work.

The common, everyday act of swatting a bug is something that happens countless times a day at picnics and ball games across the country, especially during the summer, but when Barack Obama was caught on tape by CNBC's cameras doing it, the fawning liberal press couldn't contain their excitement. All three broadcast network morning shows, on Wednesday, praised the presidential kill as they were impressed by the ''ninja'' Obama's ''precision,'' and ''cat-like quickness.''

Really bhoomes, what is it with this random capitalization busness? It's weird.

You are completely mischaracterizing the situation in Iran. The mullahs can't wait for Obama to say something encouraging the dissidents. They could then say that these people are American puppets and turn the undecided against them -- and subsequently have a bloody crackdown that they could justify as stopping the meddling of foreigners in their affairs.

Can you really not understand that? Do you really not know how much damage Bush and the neocons did to the Iranian democratic movement? They set it back years.

Sorry but the Teleprompter is a union official. It has strict limits on how many hours per month it can be used. Obambi has already used up his time talking about not much of anything. the voters are suffering Obama fatigue and stopped listening to the empty rhetoric soon after the election. Even bill Maher, the bastion of right wing extremism, has figured out that Obimbo is all talk and no action. Remember the promised "serious consequences" for N Korea? Ha ha.

Pretty funny that all the conservatives who complained about Obama's empty eloquence are now insisting that he is remiss in not using this worthless and pathetic talent of his to save Iran. After all, he's just a teleprompter, right?

But then, they always mistake talk with action. That's why Limbaugh, who has never done anything but talk, is the person most frequently identified by Republicans as their leader.

BSIMON: US interests lie in a Free and Democratic Iran. There is a short opening that could bring about the downfall of this theocractic Totalitanian Iranian government. Great Presidents sieze the momemt not remain silent. Obama has the capacity to inspire people with a speech like he did after the Iowa caucases. An inspirantional speech to the Iranian people could be tipping point to bring about freedom in Iran, but we will not ever know because this President believes freedom is not worth speaking out about. It is SHAMEFULL.

A fun pattern has emerged among the Republican efforts to reach out to voters through the new social-networking online media: They're failing massively, with episodes that just make them look stupid and ham-fisted, and even sometimes force them to apologize for offending people.

Michael Steele has made a big deal of reaching out to online media in the same way that Democrats have done very effectively -- cultivating what is known on his side as the "rightroots."

And of course, honorable mention goes out to former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), who spoke of the GOP's need to compete in the "ethernet." So how's it working out for them?

In just the last few days, we had two ignominious events from just one state. A prominent South Carolina GOP activist, Rusty DePass, said on his Facebook page that Michelle Obama was a gorilla (and not in the sense of the evolutionary fact that we are all apes -- DePass actually seems to be offended by this). He kind of apologized -- but said Michelle started it.

And another South Carolina Republican operative, Mike Green, apologized for a racist Tweet against President Obama himself:

Newt Gingrich Tweeted that Sonia Sotomayor was a "Latina woman racist" who should withdraw her nomination -- sparking a controversy that didn't quite work out the way he probably hoped it would. He later backed down from the explicit use of the word "racist."

An attempt to create a unified brand for right-wing Tweeters, "Top Conservatives On Twitter," collapsed a month and a half ago due to internal disagreements. It had lasted just several weeks as an officially-organized effort, though the "#tcot" tag still shows up on individual bloggers' posts.

Rep. Joe Barton boasted on Twitter that he'd "stumped" Energy Sec. Steven Chu by asking where oil comes from. Chu was indeed stumped -- that someone who is apparently this dumb is an elected official:

"House Republicans presented a four-page outline of their health care reform plan Wednesday but said they didn't know yet how much it would cost, how they would pay for it and how many of the nearly 50 million Americans without insurance would be covered by it."

People are mad at Dodd so they tell the pollster they'd vote for whoever the alternative is. But when election time rolls around it is no longer I'm mad at Dodd, it is Dodd versus some other guy. What does the other guy offer? Am I really that mad at Dodd?

In Democratic CT I wouldn't be counting my victory yet as a Republican challenger. Dodd may be vulnerable but he isn't dead. You still need to be the better alternative. Dodd will win reelection.

"Obamas near silence on peoples yearning to be free is as about as Shameful as it gets."

Wow, capitalized shame - that's pretty strong stuff. Have you considered the possibility that cowboy diplomacy might be a bit too provocative right now? US interests lie in maintaining stability in the middle east. Whether Ahmadinejad retains his seat or the new guy takes over, little will change anyway - the Ayatollah & council of clerics hold the power - in Iran the president is more of a figurehead than in our political system.

The R's will not regain power for some time, because they do nothing now but engage in crazy talk, in violent rhetoric which encourages their crazy followers to engage in actual violence:

On May 1, Congress passed President Obama’s budget, which included language allowing for the use of the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform with a simple majority in the Senate. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) said any use of budget reconciliation by Obama would be “regarded as an act of violence” against Republicans, and likened it to “running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.”

I like a president who chooses to actually advance our principles in the real world, rather than insisting on the sufficiency and necessity of incessantly spouting off about the principles, whatever the consequences of said spouting.

He KOZ, I am with you totally on the Iranian uprising. Obamas near silence on peoples yearning to be free is as about as Shameful as it gets. This country stands for the principle of freedom, its why every free people in the World love us. He's giving this current thug Iranian govt legitimacy. You wonder if he even understands the basic values of this country.

So far, "hope and change" has meant spending trillions we do not have on expanded government we do not need. Meanwhile, the huddled masses of Iranians yearning to breathe free think hope and change means something more. But the new American colossus stands all but silent, her beacon dimmed, her luster tarnished.

The President's admirers, especially in the media, consider him some speechmaker. He is reasonably good, by post-Reagan standards. If only his speeches had content as well as cadence! The content-less speech, which you can't remember when it's over except that it sure sounded good, is the Barack Obama specialty. Audiences eat it up with spoons. He promises change, promises unity, promises transformation. It sounds so good you want to march.

March where? That's the eternal question with Obama. You won't find him, I venture, trying to shoot down in public the Congressional Budget Office's arithmetic -- first, because he knows we know it's no GOP hatchet job; second, because meeting telling objection with telling reply isn't his stock in trade. He inspires. He rouses. He sends you airborne -- without telling you what it's going to cost when you come down.

The Democratic-controlled Congressional Budget Office says health care reform a la Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd (the Affordable Health Choices Act) would leave more than twice as many Americans uninsured as it would protect, sort of -- 36 million to 16 million, respectively. The CBO says, further, the bill would increase federal budget deficits by $1 trillion between 2010 and 2019.

Then, in classic Obamian circle-speak, he also said, "But when I see violence directed at peaceful protesters, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed… it is of concern to me and it is of concern to the American people."

Well, it's all right then. Our President is concerned and all is well.